Commonwealth v. Leath
| Decision Date | 18 November 1806 |
| Citation | 3 Va. 151 |
| Parties | The Commonwealth v. Heartwell Leath and Peter Leath |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
The prisoners were indicted, convicted, and sentenced each to two years imprisonment in the jail and penitentiary, for the offence of malicious stabbing of A. B. on the 19th of February, 1805, by the District Court of Petersburg, at the April term, 1805. At the same term, two other indictments were found against the same prisoners, the one for the felonious and malicious stabbing of Turner Fear, and the other for the felonious and malicious stabbing of John Williams, both on the aforesaid 19th February, 1805. Another indictment was also found against the prisoner Heartwell Leath alone, for the malicious stabbing of Daniel Lyon on the said day, and two other indictments were also found against the prisoner Peter Leath alone, for the same crime committed against two other persons on the same day. The prisoners were convicted by the jury on each of the indictments, and the term of their imprisonment ascertained in each case. When they were brought to the bar to receive their sentence, they moved to arrest the judgment for the following reasons. 1st. Because the defendants Heartwell Leath and Peter Leath have already been found guilty of stabbing, and have been sentenced to undergo a confinement in the penitentiary house, and because no law of the land allows a man convicted, to be sentenced to undergo punishment at a far distant day, after he shall have undergone punishment in the mean time, for an offence of the like, or of a different kind. 2d. Because the act of assembly passed in the year 1803, forbids a prisoner to be tried in the district court until he shall have been examined in a county or corporation court, and in this instance the said Heartwell and Peter Leath were examined in the court below for a single offence only, as by the record of their trial and examination will appear, which record is in the words following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town Of Purcellville v. Potts
...sentences run concurrently appeared in the statute for the first time in the amendment of 1934 (Acts 1934, p. 175). See Commonwealth v. Leath, 1 Va.Cas. 151, 3 Va. 151, where the rule was applied before any statute had been enacted on the subject, and Parsons v. Commonwealth, 154 Va. 832, 1......
-
Ex parte Tranmer
...61 A. 631, 4 Ann. Cas. 719; U.S. v. Farrell, 5 Cranch, C. C. 311, Fed. Cas. No. 15,074; Russell v. Com., 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 489; Com. v. Leath, 3 Va. 151; Howard v. U. S., 75 986, 21 C. C. A. 586, 34 L. R. A. 509; Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2576. To the second main contention of counsel that pe......
-
State ex rel. Medley v. Skeen, 10582
...before we had a statute on the subject and since, is that sentences run consecutively and not concurrently.' The case of Commonwealth v. Leath, 1 Va.Cas. 151, 3 Va. 151, decided in 1806, is cited as authority for that We are not confronted with adopting either rule, since the question of wh......
-
Ex parte Jackson
...quoted is but declaratory of the rule prevalent at common law. Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr 2574, 2577; Kite v. Com., 11 Met. 581; Com. v. Leath, 3 Va. 151, 1 Va. Cas. 151. only point, therefore, left for discussion is this: Whether the prisoner, having been sentenced at the same term of court to ......